Monday, September 28, 2009

The Campaign for Peace and Democracy has a valuable statement on the decision of the Obama administration to drop plans to install a "star wars" missile defense installations in Eastern Europe. CPD worked closely with groups in Czechoslovakia and Poland to oppose the Bush plan. I supported them in this effort.

Here's is the CPD statement.

By now you've no doubt heard the good news that the Obama administration has canceled plans to deploy a military radar in the Czech Republic and Interceptor missiles in Poland. Although it is by no means the end of the story of resisting U.S. military power, this is a great victory for the peace movement around the world, and deserves to be celebrated! Excerpts from the recent victory statements of the Czech radar opponents are at the end of this message.

The majority of Czech and Polish people never supported these proposed U.S. military bases -- though you would never know it from reading the American media with its recent headlines about the cancellation of the bases such as "Eastern Europe Grumbles About Downgrade in US Ties," "Poles, Czechs: US Missile Defense Shift a Betrayal," or, perhaps most preposterous of all, "Eastern Europe Not Feeling the Love From Obama." These headlines make the classic error of presuming that the views of governments are necessarily the same as those of the people.

In the Czech Republic, relentless mass protest prevented the Czech Chamber of Deputies from ratifying the radar agreement: opponents engaged in a whole range of creative actions against the proposed base, from petition drives and marches to hunger strikes and street theater. Czech anti-radar activists succeeded in gaining the support of many politicians in their own country, and in generating solidarity around the world -- including here in the U.S. where, as you probably know, the Campaign for Peace and Democracy was a major organizer of support for the Czech protestors with our own sign-on statements, demonstrations, forums and publicity in The New York Times, The Nation, The Progressive, the New York Review of Books, and elsewhere. (See the CPD website for more information about our solidarity campaign since 2007.)

We can only speculate about the Obama administration's actual motives in canceling these missile "defense" plans. It was conceivably a simple military modernization to deploy more effective anti-missile weapons, as Robert Gates claimed in his op-ed in the The New York Times on September 20th. It may have been an attempt to moderate wasteful military spending, as administration spokespersons have said, since replacement weapons will cost less than those originally planned. It may have been an attempt to conciliate the Russians, who have seen the bases in Poland and the Czech Republic as the seeds of a threat to their own strategic military capability; the administration hopes to enlist the Russians in imposing heightened sanctions on Iran if it refuses to cooperate on nuclear issues.* But, though they are never likely to admit it, the administration and the Pentagon also had to take into consideration the dangerous consequences of trying to install these new bases in the face of negative popular opinion in the Czech Republic and Poland and the prospect of militant and very public resistance in the Czech Republic.

In his September 20Op Ed Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made a point of stating that, "The future of missile defense in Europe is secure." He says the Pentagon plans to soon "deploy proven, sea-based SM-3 interceptor missiles -- weapons that are growing in capability -- in the areas where we see the greatest threat to Europe, and in about 2015, to place "upgraded SM-3s on the ground in Southern and Central Europe." (For an analysis of the Pentagon plans, see Bruce Gagnon's very helpful “Missile Defense: The Other Story" on the website of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space at http://www.space4peace.org/)

We are not reassured by these plans for military escalation, and we do not believe that such escalation is the way to respond to the threat of future Iranian nuclear capability. Instead, as we said in our original 2007 sign-on statement against the Czech radar, "The United States and other nuclear powers can best reduce the danger of nuclear warfare by taking major steps toward both nuclear and conventional disarmament and refraining from waging or threatening 'preventive' war -- not by expanding the nuclear threat. Such steps by the existing nuclear powers would create a political context that would powerfully discourage new countries from developing their own nuclear weapons."

Czech groups opposed to the radar have been celebrating their victory: “We have been active more than three years in the struggle to prevent this plan from materializing. We are very happy that finally the position of the US administration is in line with the will of majority of Czechs,” said Jan Tamas, spokesman of the Nonviolence movement, one of the Czech groups active in opposing the radar.

Another Czech anti-radar group, the No Bases Initiative, released a statement that said, in part,"The struggle against the radar has always been the struggle for democracy, for the right to decide on the principal orientation of the country in a referendum. Despite all difficulties and the arrogant and ignorant behavior of many politicians, it is clear that an important victory in our common struggle has been achieved. We should remember this, no matter how the situation develops in the future. It has been meaningful to sign the anti-radar petition and demonstrate against the radar, it has been meaningful to pose questions to the members of the Parliament and put pressure on them. Civic protest is meaningful.”

“For the civic No Bases Initiative (Ne zakladnam), this is not the end of our activities. We will go on, enriched by this experience. Nor does it mean the end of the U.S. anti-missile defense projects; discussion has already started about alternatives to the radar in the Czech Republic and to the missiles in Poland. But a the really good news remains ­ that we have been able to prove, within the broad anti-radar movement, and hand in hand with all those who took part in the most diverse anti-radar activities during these three years, that we have the power to change things to for the better.”

We join with our Czech colleagues in belief that “civic protest is meaningful.” We are committed to continuing the fight against nuclear escalation, missile “defense,” and U.S. militarism, including the growing wars against Afghanistan and Pakistan. --Joanne Landy and Thomas Harrison, Co-Directors, Campaign for Peace and Democracy

Friday, September 25, 2009

With membership rising and pressure increasing, management at Spirit AeroSystems today presented a new and improved contract offer to 783 engineers represented by the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA), IFPTE Local 2001.

If ratified by a union member vote, the new 3 ½-year contract will provide a 3 percent bonus, annual salary increases and ensure engineers are compensated for all overtime hours above the regular 40-hour workweek. Employees will see medical premiums increase from 10 to 15 percent, for the life of the contract.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) offered a defense of Bunning’s amendment by arguing that the 72-hour provision was critical because it provides time for senators to consult with health insurance lobbyists:

All the Senator from Kentucky is asking is for 72 hours to determine the cost. Senator Snowe has spoken eloquently about sunshine, and the openness, and the fact that the American people would support this 90 percent, 95 percent. But the thing that I’m trying to point out is we would have at least 72 hours for the people that the providers have hired to keep up with all of the legislation that we pass around here, and the regulations that we pass around here, to say “hey, wait a minute. Have you considered this?” And that’s all I’m asking for — is not only cost, but also the content of a bill. And that 72 hours, I think, is highly, highly important.

To be clear, Roberts is referring to health insurance lobbyists when he references the “people that the providers have hired to keep up with all of the legislation.” Watch it:

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Roberts has received over $172,000 in political contribution from insurance companies over the last five years. Unsurprisingly, Roberts opposes a public option because, he claims, “it won’t work.” Presumably, that’s because that’s what health insurance lobbyists have told him.

Roberts has received $844,569 from the health care industry between 2000-2008, according to Common Cause (source: Center for Responsive Politics).

Quote from the report:

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee since 2002, had never raised more than $100,000 from the health industries in a previous cycle. In 2007, he took a seat on the Senate Finance Committee and its Health Subcommittee, and in the 2007-08 cycle alone he raised over $710,000 from health industries, including $116,500 from health insurers. In early 2009, Roberts introduced an industry-friendly amendment to the SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program) extension, seeking to lower the income level under which children are eligible for state insurance program. The amendment failed.

Sunday, September 13, 2009

I didn't watch the Beatles on Ed Sullivan, but I remember classmates discussing it the next day and debating whether the lads or The Dave Clark Five were better.

A few years later, it was the Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones. I bought Beatles 45s and Sergeant Peppers, Abbey Road, and the White Album. I even managed to write a high school English paper on the "poetry" of Sgt. Pepper.

As I found my interest in blues and jazz growing, my interest in the Beatles faded away. Part of the attraction of the Beatles, after all, was, first, that everyone my age thought they were the greatest, and, second, establishment figures like Leonard Bernstein gave them the okay. Take away the mirror desires of rebellion and acceptance and it was natural for the interest to fade a little.

While I think I would like to listen to at least some parts of the restored Beatles CDS, I'm determined to resist the marketing onslaught of rock band, box set, and mono sets. It reminds me just a little too much of junior high school.

Now, if a friend or relation buys the box set and wants to loan it to me, I'll take a listen. Probably more to Revolver and Rubber Soul, rather than the latter CDs.

Meanwhile, I've been listening on Rhapsody to the early Rolling Stones CDs and Mannfred Mann, a far hipper band than I knew, to neglected US rockers like Doug Sahm and to contemporary rock groups like Phish, Third Eye Blind, and the Killers.

For those who haven't tried it, Rhapsoday is an internet-based music service. For a reasonable monthly fee, you can access their entire library and download it to a MP3 player.